CFPB Brief to Vacate Injunction & Request for Funding

On January 9, 2026, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) took two significant actions.

First, the CFPB filed an En Banc Brief for Appellants in the case National Treasury Employees Union v. Russell Vought, Case No. 25-5091, which has Oral Argument scheduled for February 24, 2026. This brief requests the Court to vacate the injunction that, according to the filing, prevents the CFPB's new leadership "from running the agency in line with the President’s policy initiative to reform the federal bureaucracy to better service the American public.”

Second, on the same day, the CFPB filed a Notice with a copy of a letter to the Federal Reserve System requesting $145,000,000.00. The Bureau stated this amount is necessary to carry out its authorities for the second quarter of Fiscal Year 2026.

Within the Brief they highlight:

• Actions the Bureau has taken since January 2025:
   
  • 02/03/25: Acting Director Bessent directed staff to refrain from taking certain actions, including issuing rules or guidance, commencing or settling enforcement actions, and making most litigation filings, without express approval.
  • 02/08/25: Acting Director Vought sent a similar email directing staff not to undertake these and other tasks “unless expressly approved by the Acting Director or required by law.”
  • 02/11/25: February 11, Consistent with the President’s directive to optimize the federal workforce, CFPB terminated approximately 85 probationary employees.
  • As the new leadership team evaluated CFPB’s operations, it made clear that it remained committed to fulfilling statutory obligations.
  • As Chief Operating Officer Adam Martinez explained, the new agency leadership is not seeking a “closure of the agency,” but is instead focused on “running a substantially more streamlined and efficient bureau” with “refocus[ed] … priorities,” while ensuring that the agency continues to “perform each of [its] critical statutory responsibilities.”
  • This perspective was reflected in communications to agency staff. On February 27, Martinez assured various divisions that “statutorily required work and/or work required by law are authorized.”
  • On March 2, Paoletta sent an all-hands email emphasizing that “[e]mployees should be performing work that is required by law and do not need to seek prior approval to do so.” JA662; see JA661 (“On behalf of Acting Director Vought, I am writing to you to ensure that everyone is carrying out any statutorily required work.”)
    
  
  

• Injunction Parameters:
   
  • The district court required CFPB to rehire all terminated employees without regard for whether these employees were necessary for the agency to carry out its statutory functions.
  • The injunction’s effect on CFPB’s contracting authority is similarly intrusive and similarly disconnected from the district court’s stated goal of ensuring CFPB remains open to fulfill its statutory obligations.
  • The injunction requires that the Bureau rescind all notices of contract termination issued after February 11, regardless of whether the contract was terminated consistent with the agency’s statutory obligations and in reflection of adjusted priorities.
    
  
  
• Request in the Brief:
   
  • At a minimum, this Court should vacate the portions of the district court’s injunction that most severely intrude on the agency’s day-to-day operations. Provisions 2 and 3 of the injunction require the reinstatement of all probationary and term employees, regardless of circumstance, and prevent any reductions in force, even if such reductions would not affect the agency’s ability to carry out its statutorily mandated activities.
  • Provision 7 of the injunction should also be vacated. It requires reinstatement of all terminated contracts regardless of whether any given contract is consistent with current agency priorities or necessary to fulfill any statutory duties. It also prohibits the agency from finalizing any subsequent decision to terminate a contract— even if the agency has “halted” the contract because, for example, the contractor’s performance is unsatisfactory. This restriction inflicts ongoing harm on the agency because contractors can incur reasonable costs—for which the government will be responsible—until the contract is terminated.